Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[YoursTrue]

So where is the evidence?


Well it is exactly 23 hours , 56 minutes and 4 seconds

That is the time Earth makes one complete rotation on its axis.

Usually, the Earth's rotation is actually slowing down so that the length of the day increases by about 1.8 milliseconds per century, on average.

When Earth first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, it spun much faster than it does today. Back then, an Earth day was approximately 10 hours.This means that 600 million years ago a day lasted only 21 hours.

So on a scale of 4.5 bilion years , it is just half a day or nearly 12 hours.This is simple math.


And that is what Science does,Precise answers to these kind of questions.

Science deals with factual Reality and evidence , you seem to forget that somehow.

I am sure by your answers that you don't see how compatible is Evolution.

What needs to be answered to satisfy your criteria?

Except the Bible does not change its concept. People may change its concept, but the Bible does not. That's part of the interesting point to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

The facts are the documented sciences of evolution supported by over 150 years of research and discoveries supporting natural evolution.

As noted, analyses of facts change. As we have seen, the "vestigial" parts of whales that were considered unnecessary and now are considered quite necessary. Therefore, for example, a 2005 textbook on evolution may have to be amended due to new revelations or discoveries in science.

 

[Dimi95]

Not necessarily. But again, I would need to look at all the instances in the Bible using the word day and see how they are applied.

Ok , we will see however how they fit in the written language.

Offhand, I recall the expression "it's a new day!" and that doesn't have to mean the next 24-hour period, but can mean a different type era.

Irrelevant.

You need to understand that Day is measured by the rotation of Earth on its axis.


Don't bother , I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

How about 1 Corinthians 15 , which is considered by majority schollars to be around 2-5 years after Jesus' death on the cross?

Do you understand the meaning of the words 'phusikos'(φυσικός) and 'pneumatikos'(πνευματικός)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so you are saying that each day of creation is a 24-hour day minus several seconds...OK. Maybe later I'll go into why that is not so.

He was giving you the time for a sidereal day. That is the time that it takes the Earth to rotate exactly 360 degrees. In other words, if you got a particular star dead center in your telescope, please note that most telescopes have motor driven mounts that are rotating at the rate of the sideral day to keep stars in place, and you had the motor off that star would show up dead center in another 23 hours , 56 minutes and 4 seconds. Due to the Earth's rotation around the Sun it takes the Earth a little bit longer than that to get the Sun so it is in the same spot it was yesterday.

Here is a fun exercise. Take the length of a solar day, exactly 24 hours, subtract the amount of time of a sidereal day, 23 hours , 56 minutes and 4 seconds, and multiple by 365.25. What do you think that the result will be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As noted, analyses of facts change. As we have seen, the "vestigial" parts of whales that were considered unnecessary and now are considered quite necessary. Therefore, for example, a 2005 textbook on evolution may have to be amended due to new revelations or discoveries in science.

No, nothing has changed. You are using the wrong definition of "vestigial". Vestigial does not mean "worthless".

 

[Dimi95]

Except the Bible does not change its concept.

No , you think you represent a concept that you think does not change.It does
It is proven world-wide.

People may change its concept, but the Bible does not.

Says who , the one's that laid hands first on interpretating it?

That's part of the interesting point to me.

You may find something more interesting if you bother to implement discipline.

 

[shunyadragon]

As noted, analyses of facts change. As we have seen, the "vestigial" parts of whales that were considered unnecessary and now are considered quite necessary. Therefore, for example, a 2005 textbook on evolution may have to be amended due to new revelations or discoveries in science.

No facts do not change, The changes in new information that update our knowledge of whales does change the evidence of the evolution of the whales. New facts increase the predictive nature of the evidence supporting the sciences of evolution. You can cite facts that lead to changes in the sciences of evolution, but you cannot honestly cite "facts" that refute the sciences of evolution.

The change in understanding of the usefulness of vestigial organs and parts does not refute the sciences of evolution.

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

 

[Pogo]

The facts are the documented sciences of evolution supported by over 150 years of research and discoveries supporting natural evolution.

We are dealing with we don't know everything so we don't know anything so my interpretation of a book is just as valid.

 

[YoursTrue]

No facts do not change, The changes in new information that update our knowledge of whales does change the evidence of the evolution of the whales. New facts increase the predictive nature of the evidence supporting the sciences of evolution. You can cite facts that lead to changes in the sciences of evolution, but you cannot honestly cite "facts" that refute the sciences of evolution.

The change in understanding of the usefulness of vestigial organs and parts does not refute the sciences of evolution.

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

Again -- the science of evolution depends upon facts. As well as theory. And facts change. You call a change in thinking updates. If a person is learning what science deems (and publishes) as true, he'd learn in one point that parts as if demonstrating whales evolved from land dwelling animals but then find that these vestigial parts presumed to be unnecessary are actually necessary.

 

[Pogo]

Again -- the science of evolution depends upon facts. As well as theory. And facts change. You call a change in thinking updates. If a person is learning what science deems (and publishes) as true, he'd learn in one point that parts as if demonstrating whales evolved from land dwelling animals but then find that these vestigial parts presumed to be unnecessary are actually necessary.

Where is the fact that changed?
It certainly wasn't your misunderstanding of science or meaning of vestigial or understanding of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

This report does not say "it is thought among the majority of scientists that..." (etc. about whales and their purported vestigial parts). Structure and Function | manoa.hawaii.edu/ExploringOurFluidEarth.
Thank you, guys.
Yet the later report says, "For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land." (Quite a big change.) Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises.
The FACTS do the talking...
what you do here is sadly refuse to admit what's true and not true about -- the facts concerning estimates of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again -- the science of evolution depends upon facts. As well as theory. And facts change. You call a change in thinking updates. If a person is learning what science deems (and publishes) as true, he'd learn in one point that parts as if demonstrating whales evolved from land dwelling animals but then find that these vestigial parts presumed to be unnecessary are actually necessary.

Again, again and again. ALL science depend on changing knowledge based on new discoveries and new research from Medicine to Physics to the sciences of evolution. The basics knowledge and foundation of the sciences of evolution has not changed in over 100 years. New discoveries and research do change the knowledge of the sciences of evolution, but nothing in new knowledge in the history of the science of evolution has refuted evolution.

You can cite facts that lead to changes in the sciences of evolution, but you cannot honestly cite "facts" that refute the sciences of evolution.

Actually you ar emisrepresenting the concept of theory in science. The sciences of evolution is based on a number of established falsified theories and hypotheses in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Genetics, and other science. Our modern medicine is based on the same theories and hypotheses. Evolution is no longer one Theory proposed by Darwin and other early scientists.

Once a Theory or hypothesis the falsification of the hypothesis or theory is based on the predictive value of facts.

The change in understanding of the usefulness of vestigial organs and parts does not refute the sciences of evolution.

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

Please cite scientific 'facts' that refute the sciences of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again -- the science of evolution depends upon facts. As well as theory. And facts change. You call a change in thinking updates. If a person is learning what science deems (and publishes) as true, he'd learn in one point that parts as if demonstrating whales evolved from land dwelling animals but then find that these vestigial parts presumed to be unnecessary are actually necessary.

To add vestigial structures in the whale skeletons are the only part of the basis of the evidence of the evolution of the whales. The usefulness of vestigial bones is not an issue as far as whether they evolved. In the many species of the ancestors of whales the evolution from legs to fines show specific stages of change over time,

Again . . .

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

Please cite scientific 'facts' that refute the sciences of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

To add vestigial structures in the whale skeletons are the only part of the basis of the evidence of the evolution of the whales. The usefulness of vestigial bones is not an issue as far as whether they evolved. In the many species of the ancestors of whales the evolution from legs to fines show specific stages of change over time,

Again . . .

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

Please cite scientific 'facts' that refute the sciences of evolution.

Since you don't believe in the Bible as written, no use for you to quote the "ninth" commandment. You all are something. Won't even believe science as you have it. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

To add vestigial structures in the whale skeletons are the only part of the basis of the evidence of the evolution of the whales. The usefulness of vestigial bones is not an issue as far as whether they evolved. In the many species of the ancestors of whales the evolution from legs to fines show specific stages of change over time,

Again . . .

Yes you violate the nineth commandment by dishonestly representing the science of evolution by intentional ignorance and selectively misrepresenting facts.

Please cite scientific 'facts' that refute the sciences of evolution.

Either whales had vestigial structures that had no use as they "evolved," or they did not. And one year scientists believe one thing, and another year it changes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since you don't believe in the Bible as written, no use for you to quote the "ninth" commandment. You all are something. Won't even believe science as you have it. Take care.

Your agenda over the years is abundantly clear. "Bible ONLY" and reject science. Nothing new.

The nineth commandment is universal, and you dishonestly misrepresent and dishonestly selectively cite science to justify your agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Either whales had vestigial structures that had no use as they "evolved," or they did not. And one year scientists believe one thing, and another year it changes.

The whales and other species over the history of evolution have vestigial organs and organs they inherited from their ancestors. The only scientific definition is:
Vesigial structures - Vestigial structures are features of an organism that are considered to have lost much or all of their original function through evolution. These structures can provide insight into the environment and behaviors of a species' ancestors and how they have evolved through time.

Nothing in the definition describes that vestigial structures must still have a necessary useful function now. In fact vestigial structures are known to no longer have a function, and some have adapted a new function as in whales. The legs and other structures of the whales no longer function as in their ancestor land animals, but they bow function as fins, or other structures useful to some other purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your agenda over the years is abundantly clear. "Bible ONLY" and reject science. Nothing new.

The nineth commandment is universal, and you dishonestly misrepresent and dishonestly selectively cite science to justify your agenda.

You may say it's universal, but what do YOU believe about it? And frankly, if Moses got the commandment from God, and told that to the Israelites, what about the creation account?

 

[Pogo]

Either whales had vestigial structures that had no use as they "evolved," or they did not. And one year scientists believe one thing, and another year it changes.

What in your la la land is a vestigial structure that justifies this interpretation? Seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This report does not say "it is thought among the majority of scientists that..." (etc. about whales and their purported vestigial parts). Structure and Function | manoa.hawaii.edu/ExploringOurFluidEarth.
Thank you, guys.
Yet the later report says, "For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land." (Quite a big change.) Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises.
The FACTS do the talking...
what you do here is sadly refuse to admit what's true and not true about -- the facts concerning estimates of evolution.

Hello!! How many times must your mistaken understanding of vestigial be corrected.

Can whales walk with those hips?